What other religions give science credit?

[Subhankar Zac]

Wrong on all 3 counts.

Carbon dating is based on assumption. Prove it isn't. You can't. It is.

The overwhelming majority of scientists in America are atheists and make fun of any scientist who believes in any sort of creation.

Science is based on making guesses and speculating. You think Einstein knew his theories were 100% correct when he conceived them? No, they are still being tested and will continue to be tested until proven true or false.

Carbon dating is assumption but a book written by God knows whom is the Stubborn truth?

Again... ITS CHRISTIAN CREATION that they make fun of, not creation.
The golden embryo theory has been long part of the Vedas... I don't care if you care less.

Science is based on solid evidence, Christianity... Fear and hate to keep the masses ignorant.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So me brought them up. Why you angry?

Just annoyed, not angry.

 

[arthra]

So in response to the question "what religions give science credit" allow me to cite a few principles from the Baha'i Faith..

One is independent investigation of truth or reality... We are not to simply take some one's word for whatever without independently investigating it;

Another principle is to use our "reason" and not accept things based on faith alone;

We should also defer to scientific findings in our investigations;

We should find harmony between science and religion.

Some relevant quotes:

"we must also work and study to bring to maturity the fruit of knowledge."

"If any religion rejected Science and knowledge, that religion was false. Science and Religion should go forward together; indeed, they should be like two fingers of one hand."

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

No, predictable, repeatable test results are just predictable and repeatable. There are also test results for dating methods like carbon dating that show the method is incorrect. I suppose you don't study those, however.

Let me guess.

Its not real because some Christian says so right?

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

How so? It doesn't take any issue with science at all. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

I never said you did so YOU cleary do not know what you are talking about.

I said science does not love Zoroastrianism.

I did not say you do not love science.

 

[Sapiens]

Scripture based religions will never be science-friendly.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

My spiritual views have no conflict with science. I don't have any one text to refer to. Shaktism alone has a bunch of texts (most not available in English or are pretty expensive to buy in English translations, but you don't need the texts to be a Shakta since it's more of an experiential thing and way of viewing the world in the first place), but there's no doctrine or dogma. You kind of have to make of it what you will.

I'm also a Satanist, but that's more of a philosophical thing for me. I do not believe in a literal Satan as a being. It's symbolism and an archetype for me that informs how I view society and has to do with internal psychological processes. It, along with my Shakta views, are a way of attaining spiritual and psychological wholeness and balance (my user title is a hint at that, too). It's a Jungian thing, for me.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, this is one of those moments that one doesn't know how to prove something very known

Seriously now, you really never heard of it? It all over the place. Check this one out:

And this educational presentation:

As for backing it up, can you give any non Muslim name before Jabir Ibn Hayyan for algebra and Al-Razi for alcohol who date before them? I don't think you can. And algebra and alcohol are basic inventions that certainly had their information borrowed by non Muslims that they can exist today.

I'm only answering you because you started it. Debating in this forum is against the rules. I could be wrong, but that can be addressed somewhere else, not in this thread. You are welcome to start a new thread in the appropriate forum for that, and I personally welcome it.

Are you saying alcohol didn't exist before Islam? Huh? And algebra goes back at least to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra#Babylonian_algebra

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I never said you did so YOU cleary do not know what you are talking about.

I said science does not love Zoroastrianism.

I did not say you do not love science.

Zoroastrianism is pretty much the same as Christianity, since Christians ripped off a bunch of its teachings and concepts. So you can argue against Zoroastrianism being science-friendly using much the same arguments against Christianity being science-friendly.

 

[Sapiens]

I give science all the credit in the world.

That's nice we atheist Scientists thank you.

Science completely supports creation.

You'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of actual scientists to agree with you. Members of the National Academy of Science who self-report as atheists is at 94% and rising. There are few theists (and even fewer creationists) and most of those few are note practicing scientists active in their community but are rather failures who have been marginalized who are looking for someone else to blame for their lack of success.

And when science is composed of biased atheist Scientists who like to speculate and make guesses, I'd just as soon watch a sitcom, at least the sitcom is funny.

All science is, in a sense, educated guesses, the smarter the scientist and more educated the scientist, the higher the probability of the "guess" modeling reality. If you can't handle that ... go read your good book and accept the fact that it has no chance of that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, to be fair, a Roman Catholic priest first came up with Big Bang Theory. Atheists pick up on anything they can bend to support their stances.

The big bang theory will probably end up being done away with since it's got a lot of problems. We'll see, but I suspect its days are numbered.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Zoroastrianism is pretty much the same as Christianity, since Christians ripped off a bunch of its teachings and concepts. So you can argue against Zoroastrianism being science-friendly using much the same arguments against Christianity being science-friendly.

I know what Zoroastrianism is.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I know what Zoroastrianism is.

Okay. Was just throwing that out there in general.

 

[Sapiens]

Wrong on all 3 counts.

Carbon dating is based on assumption. Prove it isn't. You can't. It is.

Prove it has been young Skywalker.
Multiple reproducible methods when cross-compared all agree.

Science is based on making guesses and speculating. You think Einstein knew his theories were 100% correct when he conceived them? No, they are still being tested and will continue to be tested until proven true or false.

No, science is based on testing guesses and speculations. Falsification is possible, proof is not.

Wrong on all 3 counts.

Yup, you are wrong on all 3 counts.

3 strikes and you're out.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Well, then you can provide some for those that have scriptures. You said most, not all.

As for those that don't, any proof, any thing that can imply it, works. This is a Comparative Religion section. Just saying a religion does this and that and stop does not add to the discussion.

Most of the scriptures of the religions of ancient India have scriptures not translated in English and practiced in Sanskrit.
As far as Vedic times, scriptural references has always remained symbolic.
Cosmic ocean of Vishnu- The milky Way.
Akash Ganga (the heavenly Ganges)- the milky way.
Hindu scriptures belonging to a few Upanishads speak of Purusha (the primordial force of consciousness) and Prakriti (Pure energy that changes and shapes the cosmos) coming together to create the universe.
Other religions like Vaishnavism speak of Vishnu producing Brahma who causes the births of many many universes.
The Nasadiya sukta takes an almost agnostic turn on creation.
The concept of Hiranyagarbha which is the Golden embryo, that gave birth to the universe exists in the Rig Veda and later in the Upanishads.

So, scriptural references can't always be given since.
1. Most scriptures remain in Sanskrit with no English, French, Hindi, Arabic, etc translations.
2. The Vedas were compiled around 1800 BCE while Hinduism was practiced as different religions since 10000-7000 BCE, the supposed time of Ramayana.
3. Hindus rarely take scriptures literally. Even the conservative ones see symbolism in the Samudra Manthana and Ardhanarishvara ideas.
4. Hinduism is a huge collection of religions so contradictions of ideas is fine here.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Just annoyed, not angry.

No problem

 

[Smart_Guy]

Most of the scriptures of the religions of ancient India have scriptures not translated in English and practiced in Sanskrit.
As far as Vedic times, scriptural references has always remained symbolic.
Cosmic ocean of Vishnu- The milky Way.
Akash Ganga (the heavenly Ganges)- the milky way.
Hindu scriptures belonging to a few Upanishads speak of Purusha (the primordial force of consciousness) and Prakriti (Pure energy that changes and shapes the cosmos) coming together to create the universe.
Other religions like Vaishnavism speak of Vishnu producing Brahma who causes the births of many many universes.
The Nasadiya sukta takes an almost agnostic turn on creation.
The concept of Hiranyagarbha which is the Golden embryo, that gave birth to the universe exists in the Rig Veda and later in the Upanishads.

So, scriptural references can't always be given since.
1. Most scriptures remain in Sanskrit with no English, French, Hindi, Arabic, etc translations.
2. The Vedas were compiled around 1800 BCE while Hinduism was practiced as different religions since 10000-7000 BCE, the supposed time of Ramayana.
3. Hindus rarely take scriptures literally. Even the conservative ones see symbolism in the Samudra Manthana and Ardhanarishvara ideas.
4. Hinduism is a huge collection of religions so contradictions of ideas is fine here.

A good post. Thank you for sharing

 

[First Baseman]

Carbon dating is assumption but a book written by God knows whom is the Stubborn truth?

Again... ITS CHRISTIAN CREATION that they make fun of, not creation.
The golden embryo theory has been long part of the Vedas... I don't care if you care less.

Science is based on solid evidence, Christianity... Fear and hate to keep the masses ignorant.

Yet Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and that if one doesn't love his neighbor he doesn't and cannot love God.

Yet Jesus hung out with sinners and losers, healed them and preached the gospel to them. And they believed it.

It seems as though you have been horribly deceived. You have been.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Yet Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors as ourselves and that if one doesn't love his neighbor he doesn't and cannot love God.

Yet Jesus hung out with sinners and losers, healed them and preached the gospel to them. And they believed it.

It seems as though you have been horribly deceived. You have been.

Oxymoron statements seems to be your strong suit... Really.
Hating homosexuals is Loving God.
Being the member of a church responsible for uncountable wars ans genocides is lovingGod.
Bhagavad Gita doesn't let people get deceived easily. The "Truth" of the Universal Cosmic creation that is Krishna speaks briefly about that knowledge.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Are you saying alcohol didn't exist before Islam? Huh?

I said earlier that Al-Razi is the one who discovered alcohol and its medical uses, and to create it for that purpose is an invention. I never said it didn't exist before Islam. Concentrate on the whole conversation, not just parts of it.

And algebra goes back at least to the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_algebra#Babylonian_algebra

Algebra as we know it as a science are here thanks to Muslims, otherwise it wouldn't have been called after a Muslim scientist called Jabir Ib Hayyan.